Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

141 comments

Ain't that qute? (2, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870338)

I assume they mean Qt application, not QuickTime, or whatever.

Re:Ain't that qute? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34870420)

If the first thing that enters your mind when reading "QT" is QuickTime, you're on the wrong website I'm afraid.

Re:Ain't that qute? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34870558)

If he came here for abuse, it's definitely the right website!

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34870706)

No, it isn't.

Re:Ain't that qute? (2)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870858)

I came here for a good argument.

Re:Ain't that qute? (2)

gabebillings (1001269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870930)

I came here for a good argument.

Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Re:Ain't that qute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34871538)

If you're trying to quote The Argument Sketch, try:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm [mindspring.com]

Re:Ain't that qute? (4, Funny)

zish (174783) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872920)

I know I'm going to get modded "off-topic", but this is getting too silly.

Re:Ain't that qute? (2)

aynoknman (1071612) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871930)

I came here for a good argument.

I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873284)

take char * string

Re:Ain't that qute? (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873548)

I came here for a good argument.

I came here to meet lonely singles in my area.

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34875098)

Plenty of lonely singles on /.

Lonely female singles, not so much.

Re:Ain't that qute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34874926)

No you didn't...

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875040)

I came here for a good argument.

Well, you might have to make do with mindless abuse.

Re:Ain't that qute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34871570)

I was only kidding. Relax a little.

Re:Ain't that qute? (3, Insightful)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870560)

If the first thing that enters your mind when reading "QT" is QuickTime, you're on the wrong website I'm afraid.

It's usually rendered as Q t not Q T .

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34870822)

And it's pronounced as "cute".

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870734)

QT -> QuickTime -> Trouble

Isn't that the usual line of thought?

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873720)

If the first thing that enters your mind when reading "QT" is QuickTime, you're on the wrong website I'm afraid.

I'm an Apple Fanboy, you insensitive clod!

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873754)

My best friend was killed by Apple Fanboys you insensitive clod!

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873920)

If the first thing that enters your mind when reading "QT" is QuickTime, you're on the wrong website I'm afraid.

Well, QT is QuickTime. Qt is the toolkit. And he's just assuming that slashdot summary got it wrong.

Re:Ain't that qute? (5, Informative)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870754)

I had the same reaction. The answer lies in the wikipedia, not in the unhelpful intermediate posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(framework) [wikipedia.org]

Qt "is a cross-platform application framework that is widely used for developing application software with graphical user interface (GUI) (in which case Qt is referred to as a widget toolkit when used as such), and also used for developing non-GUI programs such as command-line tools and consoles for servers"

Re:Ain't that qute? (3, Funny)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871408)

as a corallary to OP: If the first thing that enters your mind when reading "QT" is QuickTime, you have a problem.
if you go to wikipedia for help? Now you have 2 problems.
can we please get back to arguing now?

Re:Ain't that qute? (3, Insightful)

nawcom (941663) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872154)

can we please get back to arguing now?

Yeah, right after I finish beating Doom III by "I.D." software running on my "MAC".

I wouldn't be surprised if the poster pronounces daemon as "daymon" either. The geek ego sure seems to get in the way of learning how to pronounce things. It looks like devs these days will have to provide audio files [kernel.org] to show how to pronounce their work [irssi.org] .

*shakes his head at correct pronunciation deniers*

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872298)

I just wish I GNU what you were talking about.

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875112)

The jargon file/hacker's dictionary explicitly states that day-mun is acceptable pronunciation.
It doesn't really matter that the original users, in correct English, pronounced it dee-mon when a made up meaning of a word (the computer terminology definition) is pronounced in a multitude of ways decades later.

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875214)

pronounce their work [irssi.org]

L-eye-nux / L-ee-nux, fair enough; but this guy's using syllables that don't exist in half the world!

Re:Ain't that qute? (2)

Gerald (9696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873172)

QuikTrip [wikipedia.org] . The device gives you coffee and a microwave sandwich while filling your gas tank, all in less than a second.

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

Meski (774546) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874004)

Can QuickTime do anything in one second? (apart from crash)

Re:Ain't that qute? (1)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875526)

It can offer you updates with Safari and iTunes install preselected.

Pretty cool... (1)

emanem (1356033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870446)

...speechless!
Ciao!

Re:Pretty cool... (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870532)

picotux [picotux.com] does not seem to be available anymore. That's too bad. :-(

Re:Pretty cool... (1, Insightful)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870688)

I don't think it's cool at all because this takes away one more of my excuses [xkcd.com] to grab a cup of Joe and have a smoke.

Re:Pretty cool... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874652)

I agree that this was a really good job done!

I will have to look into that because there are many applications around that would benefit from such a solution.

Re:Pretty cool... (1)

Hammer (14284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875046)

The important lesson from this is that if you were to strip out all the stuff that comes in most distros to handle all kinds of hardware and such you would get a faster boot on your desktop too. Now, having said that..... How much does boot time really matters??

Re:Pretty cool... (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875430)

It depends upon your application, but in many, quite a lot. One reason quoted for the popularity if the iPad is its "instant on". 1 second cold boot means 1 second from zero power consumption to operation. If it is a display in your car, you want it to start in a second.

Ermm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34870552)

HOW?

Re:Ermm.. (5, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870730)

The have a slideshow here: http://www.slideshare.net/andrewmurraympc/elce-the [slideshare.net] , it's interesting starting at slide 19. Especially the executable reordering to defer loading of UI event handling code is impressive.

Re:Ermm.. (2)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875176)

I hate slideshare. What ever happened with good old Pdf downloads? But now Pdfs need to be embedded in Web2.0 crap. We ain't on the cloud yet, every PC out there have have a Pdf viewer installed. If they at least would use JavaScript so you don't need Flash for it like Google Maps.

"Download is disabled by the owner". If the owner don't like the Pdf be in public than why the hell are they posting it on a freely accessible website? Does the owner really thinks I'm going to copy it and distribute it as my own work? Does the owner trusts me with nothing? Should I blank my brain after I saw the slides?

If the owner want that I see his stupid slides then he should trust me more and not forbidding me of open my favorite Pdf viewer, print the slides out or to copy his stupid slides on a different device.

He can take his slides and put them where the sun don't shine. Then he can be really sure that nobody is going to copy his work.

PDF is available here (3, Informative)

lindi (634828) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875396)

My thoughts exactly, I don't want to use non-free adobe flash and slideshare does not work with gnash. Fortunately a very similar looking PDF does seem to be available at

http://elinux.org/images/f/f7/RightApproachMinimalBootTimes.pdf

Details (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870626)

Any details on what they've done? Is it largely hardware-specific initialisation, or have they made changes that would be useful on a traditional desktop?

Re:Details (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34871062)

Any details on what they've done? Is it largely hardware-specific initialisation, or have they made changes that would be useful on a traditional desktop?

From the article:

"We've not applied any specific intellectual property but instead spent time analysing where boot delays are coming from and simply optimising them away. The majority of the modifications we make usually fall into the category of 'removing things that aren't required', 'optimising things that are required', or 'taking a new approach to solving problems' and are tailored very precisely to the needs of the 'product'."

Also:

"If you're interested in exactly what modification I made and a little more about the approach taken - you may be interested in these slides [http://www.slideshare.net/andrewmurraympc/elce-the] which I presented at ELC-E 2010"

yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (4, Interesting)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870744)

...booted in about 5 seconds, and that was to a general desktop.

And my toy homebrew OS boots to a primitive UI in under 2 seconds after BIOS, and much of that is running interpreted bytecode.

The fact is that a full BIOS + Linux / Windows system is a horrible fucking mess of bloat, but part of it is the price you pay finding and initialising all those millions of third party devices your old/embedded device isn't going to need to worry about.

Still, as always, I believe any engineer's claim not before I get to test it myself.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870824)

"...booted in about 5 seconds, and that was to a general desktop."

So does Linux back in 2008 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7NxCM8ryF8 [youtube.com] Yes, BIOS is a kludge but it's on the way out.

As for Linux/Windows - they can certainly be optimized to achieve sub-second boot times. But flexibility might be greatly limited in this case.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (2)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871024)

Yes, BIOS is a kludge but it's on the way out.

A quick search only showed news articles from 2003 (behind a pay wall...), but I am pretty sure I heard the same claims before 2000. I have no idea what the technical hurdles are, but there has been much talk and little action on killing BIOS.

On the plus side, I'm looking forward to using more than 640k of ram, which is no longer enough for anyone.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872398)

The problem is - why? What are you doing that makes 10 seconds less on your boot such a big deal!?

It works as-is now, and there's not a whole lot to be gained by "fixing" it - which is why it doesn't seem to be happening.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873114)

The problem is - why? What are you doing that makes 10 seconds less on your boot such a big deal!?

Jef Raskin summed it up in one of his commandments for designing a "humane" interface:

"A computer shall not waste your time or require you to do more work than is strictly necessary."

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873600)

Well, if you're running Linux on your laptop, you can't suspend/resume... ;)

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

Hammer (14284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874990)

Well, if you're running Linux on your laptop, you can't suspend/resume... ;)

Of course you can suspend, I do that several times a day

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (3, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874090)

CarPC? HTPC? Just being able to turn the computer entirely off when it's not in use rather than suspend?

This particular example was focused on embedded applications, but the general idea of being able to boot a computer reasonably close to instantly is advantageous pretty much anywhere.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874382)

Any time wasted is not available for other uses. Yes, it's only 10 seconds, but it does add up over time. Plus, unless it took a ridiculous amount of time, I'm not sure I see any reason not to do it. Plus systems that boot fast tend to be less bloated.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873546)

Coreboot was started in 1999, that's probably what you remember.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873816)

The biggest problem is the first widely used MS OS that support EUFI was Vista x64 SP1 so system builders had basically no incentive to switch (EUFI supports BIOS emulation but if 90% of systems sold will be running the emulation why not just ship a BIOS with fewer compatibility issues).

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (2, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870886)

The fact is that a full BIOS + Linux / Windows system is a horrible fucking mess of bloat

It's also a huge pile of capability that wasn't around 20 years ago. I find it hard to believe that, capability-wise, your Acorn A3000 was on par with a modern PC. I don't see it as bloat, but as the necessary result of supporting a wide array of capabilities (not necessarily hardware) and an extremely capable and platform-independent environment.

BIOSes (especially RAID) are the slowest part these days, and UEFI is hopefully going to combat that.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870966)

as the necessary result of supporting a wide array of capabilities (not necessarily hardware)

Explain.

BIOSes (especially RAID) are the slowest part these days, and UEFI is hopefully going to combat that.

Many modern BIOS implementations are just a UEFI implementation with a translation layer. The "problem" is the firmware self-testing and doing lots of patient device detection/initialisation - there's no inherent reason UEFI would improve that.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

QuantumBeep (748940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874258)

Explain.

VESA BIOS extensions. DMI. ACPI. Legacy USB device support (that's software). Option ROM detection and execution. Thermal management detection and operation. LBA (my first three computers didn't have that). Hardware-level security. That's just off the top of my head, in flash ROM soldered to your motherboard.

It gets more interesting the moment the boot sector is executed.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (4, Insightful)

sitharus (451656) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871710)

Your Acorn A3000 held and executed most of the OS from ROM. When you don't have to copy from disk times are much faster.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34874950)

OK, the A3000 has a ROM of 512k I think.
Lets assume a slightly larger ROM, say 10M.
How long does it take to load 10M from HDD to memory on a modern system?

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875100)

Reading a megabyte or so from disk to RAM doesn't take longer than a couple milliseconds.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34875582)

Well, an embedded device probably has Flash nowadays. It doesn't need to copy code from disk either. In fact, with xip (executie in place) it doesn't even need to copy at all.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (3, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872368)

Actually if you custom compile your kernel to strip out every device driver that's irrelevant to your system you will save an absolute trivial amount of boot time at best. Go to TFA and click the slideshow to see where the real slogs of the boot lie.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875690)

The irony is that a slideshow is one of the most time-consuming ways of absorbing information.

Re:yes, my 1990 Acorn A3000... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873000)

Hi John!

Made my day (4, Interesting)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870856)

Its good to see a fun tech article like this on /. I haven't seen any in a while (maybe its just me).

I assume that during boot time, the Qt UI and low level hardware modules are loaded immediately. Then other modules and services can be loaded later on such as networking, video capture drivers and other lower priority services. I also assume the UI is not based on X but a Qt implementation that is directly drawing to the frame buffer.

Lately I have been on a bit of an embedded systems kick playing around with PLC's and embedded micro controllers. This is a great article.

Re:Made my day (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872580)

I bet it would be fun to see... if they hadn't hosted the site on the device too.

Re:Made my day (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875280)

I enjoyed it. Imagine how nice it would be in a instant wireless browsing device. Or it serves out pages from which you can control a connected Arduino [arduino.cc] device. Turn on and go - very neat!

Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (5, Insightful)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34870924)

I have to say, the most impressive/innovative tweak, to me, was the re-ordering of required functions in the compiled binary. Doing so allowed them to reduce load time, by making it that only two blocks had to be demand-read off the flash filesystem, instead of four.

That's some crazy, use-the-drum-spin-as-timing, innovative thinking right there. Serious kudos.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (5, Informative)

Chrutil (732561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871108)

That's actually common practice in profile guided optimization, put commonly used code close together in the image to minimize the number of pages loaded.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871508)

I have to say, the most impressive/innovative tweak, to me, was the re-ordering of required functions in the compiled binary. Doing so allowed them to reduce load time, by making it that only two blocks had to be demand-read off the flash filesystem, instead of four.

That's some crazy, use-the-drum-spin-as-timing, innovative thinking right there. Serious kudos.

Most assuredly!

I realized these guys were serious when they talked about the bandwidth reading from flash vs. the bandwidth of boot image decompression. Kudos, indeed.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (5, Informative)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872150)

Really? I thought this was standard stuff for profile-guided-optimization. It's common knowledge that when a system initializes, it jumps all over the image, which is bad if it's paged. Seems a big "duh" to reorder functions so that all the init code is together.

Another optimization that was common old Mac compilers was "dead-stripping", where they avoided linking in any functions that were never called. Apparently this isn't commonly done and instead if a single function in a file is called, then ALL are linked in, at least when I looked into it for Linux a while back.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873876)

Another optimization that was common old Mac compilers was "dead-stripping", where they avoided linking in any functions that were never called. Apparently this isn't commonly done and instead if a single function in a file is called, then ALL are linked in, at least when I looked into it for Linux a while back.

But doesn't rely on linker optimization support to work (eg GCC's new LTO)? Normally in the first pass when all the objects are being compiled, there's no way to know which functions are going to be unused (I'd imagine, IANACD).

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875182)

It's called -ffunction-sections, which puts each function in a file in its own section so the linker can get rid of all the unused ones. No need for LTO.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34875662)

The linker's task is to put in the executable only what's needed. Taking only the right object files from archives is logically similar to taking only the right functions from object files. You could call both steps optimizations. If you skip either step, the only result is a larger executable, but it will still work.

The "new" LTO in linkers actually works on statement level, not function level. That's far more complicated because the relation between instructions is far less clear, and far more architecture-dependent. Function-level linking is comparison is so trivial, I'm wondering why it's so uncommon on Unix. I think Visual Studio got it about two decennia ago.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (3, Interesting)

mhotchin (791085) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872426)

Um. This capability has been around since FOREVER. I worked at MS 'beside' the group that created exactly such a tool, called BBT. This was ~2000.

It was the most used, but not the only result of a tool suite called Vulcan. This would allow you to pull apart and re-assemble a binary, either for re-ordering (optimization) or to add instrumentation for other optimization projects (like the one I worked on).

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (3, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873224)

You forgot to mention the performance died when marketing made you link in ie.h .

Re:Function re-ordering cheats? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873620)

Um. This capability has been around since FOREVER. I worked at MS 'beside' the group that created exactly such a tool, called BBT. This was ~2000.

It was the most used, but not the only result of a tool suite called Vulcan. This would allow you to pull apart and re-assemble a binary, either for re-ordering (optimization) or to add instrumentation for other optimization projects (like the one I worked on).

You deliberately seem to miss one really important point.

These guys do not have to pull apart binaries they can mod them from source if they feel like it. You have let the cat out of the bag and admitted that Microsoft uses disassemble technique on other peoples binaries all the time. No wonder it was so easy for you guys to clone closed functions in IBM's Lotus Suite and com SQL framework, then pretend that you did not know what was going on when all of a sudden their binaries were slower and less reliable than yours!

So you guys have been doing what you say others have no business do to your software FOREVER. Face it... considering the fact that embedded Linux runs most TVs, BD players and other really popular devices on the market today, you are just mouthing a party line and not making a real valid argument why MS is losing out in the embedded products market!

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (1)

Maestro485 (1166937) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872962)

ahhh damn what was that drum-spin story? I've read it around here before and I've been trying to find it again but with no luck. It's a great story and if you have a link it would be much appreciated!

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34873178)

I don't think it's all that impressive.

Almost 10 years ago QNX offered a 1.44 MB floppy disk that contained the OS, a nice user desktop, a network stack, a modem driver, and web browser.

It took a little time to load, only because it was running off a Floppy. How long would it take to load 1.44 MB off flash these days?

If you've got hardware that doesn't make you wait a long time on a bios startup, loading up an OS should be able to be quite fast.

Re:Function re-ordering inside the image? wow (1)

Douglas Goodall (992917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875964)

Use the drum spin as timing, are we talking bendix G15 here?

At last! (5, Funny)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871130)

This is the year of Linux on the de- wow, that was quick.

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34872522)

This is the year of Linux on the de- wow, that was quick.

Except they didn't boot to a desktop, just a toy application with no significant functionality. It would take significantly longer to boot to something like Gnome (or KDE since they're using Qt).

Re:At last! (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875326)

I would mod you up; that was literally the funniest thing I've read all year!

Flash 9 (2)

Max Hyre (1974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34871518)

<rant>
The bleedin' slideshow requires Flash 9 , for crying in a bucket! Why the hell do you need Flash to show a sequence of static images in succession!? And to download the slides, you have to have two accounts: one on Facebook, and one on something called Slideshare.

Screw it.
</rant>

(Be glad I'm sparing you my take on Javascript.)

Re:Flash 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34871950)

Well, there is an embedded video in the slides, so Flash is slightly justified.

Re:Flash 9 (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872286)

Are we sure the slides were even images - some of them might even have just been text!

Screwed it too.

Re:Flash 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34874680)

Are we sure the slides were even images - some of them might even have just been text!

Screwed it too.

I am sure you would have been really impressed if they had released their blog Silverlight based with embedded html5, h.264 video with a slide show. And on a site that is impervious to being / dotted like ones we all love in Washington State.

Maybe in a few years that is all we are going to see on the web, at least in the world according to Lord Ballmer.

Judging from the amount of time these guys must of spent coding to do what they did most likely did not have the time or energy left to use a really efficient presentation piece of software like Power Point!

It gives me Mono just thinking about how much of a kiss and tell that would be if they had to go work for Lord Ballmer, and not themselves.

But then again: Perhaps some here on /. have already surrendered their intellectual property and just run around saluting and shouting the mantra All Roads Lead to Redmond! Hail Ballmer, Hail Ballmer, (genuflection) Heil Ballmer, Heil Ballmer.....oops

Re:Flash 9 (3, Informative)

frogboyflips (1400583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874914)

There is also a PDF of the slides on the elinux.org web site under the 'Boot Time' page.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34871642)

Some mighty awesome hacking going on there!
Too bad it won't translate well into desktops.

1 second? Lies! (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872202)

Um, when he pulls the plug - he inserts it at 1:03, the device is mostly booted by 1:06, but the video feed isn't restored until 1:08. In other words, I'd say at least 3 seconds, I'd call it 5 seconds to fully boot and load the application.

Don't get me wrong, still impressive, but it seems to be a bit more than one second...

On an unrelated note: Why the hell does Slashdot still not work properly with Google Chrome? It's the only site I've ever had any problems with....

Re:1 second? Lies! (2)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872340)

are you sure that the machine isn't booting in one second and then it takes the monitor itself some time to adjust?

I'd be willing to bet they are doing software boot process monitoring and know exactly how long it takes to boot.

Who needs fast boot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34872450)

Stop!

If you thought of posting "Who among us needs a fast-booting machine when we just leave our machines on all the time? Nobody reboots!", please choke on a lump of poison, because fast booting is desireable and awesome.

Don't say I'm tilting at windmills, people do post that kind of shit.

Re:Who needs fast boot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34872816)

Mod parent up, I've been annoyed with "booting" ever since computers stopped being "instant on" devices in the 80s. Sure, computers are more powerful and flexible now, but they're also a lot more annoying.

There is one small problem... (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34872622)

No, it's not about the Knights who say Ni. Does this thing have USB support? Does it have Wifi support? Products by Technogic Systems boot to a shell prompt in less than 2 seconds but if you need to load USB drivers and populate a /dev it drops to about 6-10 seconds. Wifi takes longer.

Re:There is one small problem... (2)

PiSkyHi (1049584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874368)

...and what the hell is wrong with using a pre-configured suspend image anyhow? seems like a lot of effort wasted IMO.

About the same amount of time (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34873308)

that it took to write this post? For a minute I was thinking this was twitter.

**Yawn** (1)

fsterman (519061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34874078)

Wake me up when they get to ~80 millseconds. [google.com]

my 2 cents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34875096)

this shows how many ressources are wasted in normal operating conditions. Before optimisation, the processor and other things were just idling most of the time... This is a lean approach, focus on removing the waste.

As an engineer in electronics, I really like the "to the metal" approach. Good job!

The link does not seem to work. (1)

apetrelli (1308945) | more than 3 years ago | (#34875152)

It redirects to 123 reg. What's happening?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...